Flag Counter since 20091011

Hit Count Since 20110428

Archive for the ‘Gender Issues’ Category

We’ve mooted this issue before in the course of some heated exchanges on the old “Commonsense Political Thought” blog.

So, it’s not a new question, but it remains one worth considering on its own: Are political progressives, those human biological expressions we term modern liberals, in some way radically unsuited for life in the system of political liberty once bequeathed to us by our ancestors? Are they, modern liberals, in some ways and on average congenitally defective, or maybe “just fundamentally different” with regard to the possession of the (“lower case”) kind of self-governance and self-reliance capacity which presumptively (according to our Founders’ theories) makes participation in Self Government in a (“Upper Case”) political sense, a workable proposition?

Are modern-liberal hedonic utilitarianism and values nihilism even, say, the mere result of biological dispositions or attributes, rather than intellectually arrived at conclusions?

Perhaps, as Hoagie suggested the other day, while he was exasperatedly engaging in a bit of unapologetic invective, modern liberals really are, in a statistically meaningful sense, a distinct sub-population within this polity: a politically co-existing but distinguishable population of humans who have certain kinds of distinct behavioral or psychological or even morphological traits (or deficits) which make life in a constitutional polity – a limited republic – very unpleasant, un-meaningful, and even frightening for them.

The answer is probably unfolding before our very eyes.

“Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.” Daily Mail | UPDATED: 19:39 EST, 16 May 2013

Given Their Manifest Natures, that is to say the somatic, the morphological and psychological manifestation that constitutes “them”, perhaps a classically liberal constitutional polity suitable for self-directing individuals just doesn’t fit with what they are capable of or able to appreciate in life.

The Depressive and Anxious Liberal

Perhaps the most revealing difference is the enhanced tendency that Liberals have for depressive and anxious disorders. We stumbled onto this phenomenon in our Spring 2005 survey, and filled in some of the details in our Summer 2005 survey.

Liberals report higher rates of major depression, mild depression, bipolar disorder, agoraphobia, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and general anxiety. This is true for both males and females. Liberals also report higher stress levels and lower confidence levels (both soon to be reported).

Liberals are also much more likely to use anxiolytics and antidepressents. Liberals report more difficulty in maintaining attention during conversations. Liberals on average spend more time in “negative” emotional states. By “negative”, we mean mental states that seem to be contrary to their own self-interest. They also report lower rates of involvement in pair-bond relationships. Neuropolitics.org Ezine February 2006

Now we might take this too far, and certainly racists in the past have. They did so by imagining for example, that they could discern an invariable and universal gene link between somatic expressions and character traits which manifest as morally evaluable behavior.

But that seems to me to be a rather different proposition than to notice that, say, feminized males and masculinized females for instance, tend to identify as political progressives; whereas conservatives are more strongly sexually dimorphic.

Multiple research disciplines have found evidence that our male ancestors used physical aggression to compete for status. The evidence shows how this competition led to the evolution of numerous physical and psychological sex differences. Sell and team’s review highlights the sheer number of physical and mental features that show evidence of special design for physical aggression in men, compared to women. These features include abilities to dissipate heat, perceive and respond rapidly to threats, estimate the trajectory of thrown objects, resist blunt-force trauma and accurately intercept objects.
While fighting ability was undoubtedly essential when man was a hunter-gatherer, how important and influential is it today? According to Sell and colleagues’ work, man’s fighting ability is still a major influence on his attitudes and behavioral responses. Springer Select New York / Heidelberg, 10 April 2012 in “Why are action stars more likely to be Republican?”

Just how that actually works itself out in detail, is another matter.

For example, whether people who are marginalized or who feel marginalized for whatever reason tend to be more politically “liberal” on what are pretty obvious socially motivating grounds, or, whether the physical phenomenon or trait itself is what prompts a “liberal” social attitude, is a question I don’t pretend to have an answer to.

Maybe it is a mixture of both … first, congenitally divergent interests among people who find themselves associating in a political arrangement with strongly divergent others, and second, a particular strategy for jockeying for place, and status, and for the distribution of economic spoils, within that polity.

But the difference seems to researchers to be as plain as the nose on your face:

” … when it comes to female politicians, perhaps you can judge a book by its cover, suggest two UCLA researchers who looked at facial features and political stances in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.

The researchers also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.

In fact, the relationship is so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker’s proximity to feminine norms. Science Daily
September 27, 2012

Nonetheless, whatever the details, I think we see an interesting phenomenon developing in the United States, as the progressive programmatic invariably passes beyond the achievement of transactional dominance in the public realm, and relentlessly seeks to percolate all the way down to every last private relation and interpersonal transaction.

Who, or whatever these people are, it does not appear they are prepared to recognize any limits.

Now, yes, admittedly, this totalizing impulse on the part of leftism is historically well-known. It even follows from an explicit tenet of Marxist theory: base and superstructure, which rejects the realms of civil society and political society as legitimately distinct from each other – viewing such a distinction as creating a disjunction or a break in the life of the whole man.

It – classical political theory – does this they [Marx] claim[s] by formally granting man the status of a political peer or “citizen” wherein he is entitled to experience the impartial operation of the public law and to participate in public affairs, but nonetheless remains liable to the contempt of and exclusion from others within the private realm. This possibility results from allowing those potentially excluding others [through the concepts of the private family and property, and through other forms of private relations] a socially unregulated access to the material world, and to “selfishly” benefit from their “unearned personal powers”; which, in the end, gives these persons an opportunity to advantage and distance themselves from those whom they may view as unappealing or unworthy of self-sacrificial solidarity, for whatever reason or reasons.

Thus man’s nature, is itself a problem to be socially addressed through social, and other, engineering. Eventually, you may wind up with this:

“So that just as. to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a -temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility – the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of child-bearing and child-rearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/firestone-shulamith/dialectic-sex.htm

With then, the quote above, we have obviously passed beyond the simple question of whether “modern liberals, [are] in some way unsuited for life in the system of political liberty” to one of whether they are inevitably aiming toward another kind existence altogether. At which point the question of a shared polity becomes perhaps, the least of the questions requiring our attention.

But even the original question seems unlikely to survive as a “moral” question, if the research continues toward the conclusions which it at present seems pointing.

Ironically, the issue may have been most recently framed along these lines by political progressives themselves when they announced that “The personal is the political”

Yes, well, ideology and revolutionary rhetoric aside, we may be on the verge of finding out just how personal the political really is.

Like this:

I’ve not thoroughly investigated this for the back story, but rather stumbled across it while dealing with another matter.

The proximate source for this was the always provocative Michael Voris of the Catholic site “Church Militant TV”, though it’s been floating around the Internet for almost a month now.

I first came across Voris himself when a militant atheist troll dedicated to disrupting philosopher Professor Edward Feser’s moderate realist oriented blog (Feser is himself a Catholic) , mockingly inserted a link to a Voris polemic as an example of a “Real Catholic”.

The mockery might have backfired on him since although no one could call me a “Catholic in Good Standing” I found Voris’ observations and plain spoken manner of argumentation almost always entertaining, and quite often acute.

Voris’ point was that the people in what he calls the Catholic “Church of Nice” consistently underestimate the vehemence of the anti-Christians.

And I must say, that this event certainly comes as a shock to me. I cannot imagine how it did not break out into violence. Someone spray paint into my face and I would probably kill them in instant retaliation. But then these young men, praying the rosary around the church they were protecting, come from both a different culture, a different religion, and a different spiritual sensibility, than I do.

I’m mortified at what they have endured, but for some reason not contemptuous of them as I would be for those who otherwise passively submit to assault, when they need not endure it.

Like this:

No one expects Ariana Huffington’s snide exercise in left-wing propaganda to be or to even look neutral. And it has become abundantly, tediously, wearyingly, evident that anything involving or related to homosexual and gender disorders will receive the kind of histrionically laudatory headline ledes usually associated with the notoriously shameless and scruple free British tabloids.

This one though, is so contemptibly and unbelievably lunatic as to (nearly) beggar the imagination.

“Manning delivers heartfelt speech to packed courtroom

Army whistleblower Bradley Manning took the stand Wednesday and spoke candidly about his personal issues, controversial actions and hopes for the future.

‘I am sorry. I am sorry…’

Unbelievable? Believe it.

“Whistle blower”

“Whistleblower”

AOL and the Huff Po have obviously gone completely insane with everyone knows who at the helm.

Marvel then, at the morally disordered interior of Ariana’s mind, laid out for all to the world to see.

What better way for a white person born over a century after slavery was abolished to pay reparations to a black woman born roughly a century after slavery was abolished than to perform slave labor for that black woman?

Look at all those young men with “fun bags” (according to Pennsylvania Legislator Babette Josephs, D – Phila)!!!

By the way, normal people call them “responsible, politically astute young adults”. We all know Leftists have all manner of different terms for them, many of which would not survive the moderation filter here at Truth Before Dishonor.

Also note: Truth Before Dishonor officially endorsed Mayor Mia Love for Congress many months ago, prior to her winning her Primary in Nevada’s 4th Congressional District.

Pew has released its October poll and Obama received terrible news. He lost 12 points to Romney in a single month. Perhaps it’s time for Obama’s corrupt Department of Injustice to sue Pew. The Socialist Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware was crowing about the September Pew poll despite being shown very clearly that the poll was heavily skewed Democrat, far afield of the actual voting populace. So what will the Left (whom Perry Hood parrots) say about the same polling firm now that the numbers show Obama losing by 4? Will they, and consequently the parrot, accept the numbers? I highly doubt it. They’re very inconsistent like that.

Pew’s September poll, and many other polling outfits’ September polls, were heavily skewed to the Democrat side of the RDI. Far afield of the actual voting makeup of the US population. And people went through the effort to unskew the polls. This effort showed Romney with a strong lead over Obama instead of the strong Obama lead that Pew and others were showing. Of course, the Left scoffed at the idea of unskewing their skewed polls. Well, Pew did just that. They unskewed their own September poll with their October poll, showing a far more realistic RDI sample. And the result is Romney leads Obama by 4 in October.

Now there’s a reason polling outfits would skew in September but not in October (or not so badly in October). It’s actually a very simple reason. While there are those who don’t see anything nefarious about the shenanigans, I do. And here’s why:

Polling outfits want Liberals to win, so they provide propaganda showing Democrats in unrealistic leads. It helps bring low-information voters into the fold and discourages Conservative voters. It pushes the actual polling numbers more to the polling firms’ liking, thus when it’s time to unskew the polls, the damage has been done.

Polling outfits like to tout their accuracy, pointing back to previous voting outcomes compared to their polls; thus, they have to have final unskewed polls to show to unsuspecting readers. Their earlier polls, since they are far enough away from the election, can be ignored. Or they can be said to show the gradual shift toward Conservatives as the cycle goes on (for other insidious anti-First Amendment activities by lawmakers and Leftist activists alike).

In order for the polling outfits to push their two-fold propaganda, they have to push a Left bias in their polls to start and then shift their polls to far more reasonable breakdowns as the election approaches. And this is what Pew has done. It is what other polling firms will be doing, as the election approaches. They have no choice if they want to be believed in later years.

In other bad news, that polling firm the corrupt Obama Department of Injustice sued is showing a 47/47 tie among registered voters, a 5-point Obama loss from its previous poll. What’s worse, this is a poll of registered voters, which consistantly swings two or three points further Left than the actual vote results will show. So, when adjusted for likely voters, Obama is trailing here, too.

In still other news, Obama went from +10 in Michigan in September to +3 now, with a margin of error of +/-4. That means it’s a statistical dead heat in Michigan. And in Pennsylvania, Obama only leads by 2 with a D+6 poll. That makes Pennsylvania a very clear toss-up, unlike what the loony Left were saying.

And he declared the first one, where Obama wins by a landslide, ain’t never gonna happen. I agree. The other three possibilities could happen, although he believes the middle two are the most likely. But as time goes on toward the election and the polls start unskewing, it’s looking more and more like the last two are the most likely with Obama’s squeaker least likely of the three and Obama’s landslide still ain’t never gonna happen.

Did I write “mafia”? I meant the Philadelphia city council, which, like many other political leaders in big liberal cities, is acting in a manner reminiscent of organized crime, declaring that a privately owned company must change its behavior in order to operate in those cities, which is a tactic similar to what organized crime does, known as “extortion”, which is a felony. When I first wrote a post about Dan Cathy stating that the company doesn’t support gay marriage back on the 20th, I had no idea of the true extent of the liberal apoplexy to come

(Fox News) The Philadelphia City Council will consider a resolution condemning Chick-fil-A for what one city leader called “anti-American” attitudes that promote “hatred, bigotry and discrimination.”

Interesting: I thought the anti-American attitude was one of stopping both free speech and freedom of association. Silly me. Do you see Conservatives rushing out to abandon Amazon due to Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, donating $2.5 million to gay marriage? Nope. If we were truly upset, we’d just create a competing company. But, we all know that Lefties are pretty lose with their definition of “anti-American.”

City Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy telling him to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”

“My effort is to allow people to understand that in certain segments of corporate America there are folks who are using their dollars to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination,” Kenney told Fox News.

He is introducing a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.”

Kenney joined the mayors of Boston, Chicago and now San Francisco in blasting the Atlanta-based company for supporting a biblical definition of marriage – a union between one man and one woman.

In Liberal World, one is not allowed to disagree with the tenants. Diverging opinion are verboten, comrades, and must be squashed. It’d be interesting to see what would happen if the company pulled all their stores from the liberal cities, reducing jobs and tax money. Other companies might be reticent to build in those cities, since the possibility of being extorted by the politicians would be ever present, and what business owner wants the extra hassle? Is it any wonder job creation is low, what with crazy liberal politicians out there (among other reasons)?

Mr Teach’s use of the word “mafia” seems appropriate. From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

It was early March when the siege began at the Goldtex construction site just north of Center City, and it has continued all through this brutally hot summer – almost five long months. Workers have been beaten, car tires slashed. Delivery trucks are blocked for hours. This week, two people were arrested on assault charges. Neighborhood residents are afraid to walk near the building.

If a gang held a Philadelphia house hostage for this long, you can bet it would have been all over the news and politicians would be issuing releases by the gross. The events at Goldtex are part of a union protest, so there is practically a Cone of Silence hanging over this tense and increasingly violent standoff.

Philadelphia, we need to talk.

It hardly needs to be said that Philadelphia is an old-school union town, one of the last left in America where muscle and tradition rule unquestioned. Until two thirtysomething developers, Michael and Matthew Pestronk, began converting a 10-story loft building at 12th and Wood Streets into 163 apartments, no one had dared in decades to build a major project here without an all-union workforce.

Much, much more at the link. Mrs Saffron continues to note the union harassment of the Post Brothers’¹ project. Post Brothers are using some union and some non-union labor, having offered contracts to union carpenters, electricians and demolition crews, but did not want to contract with the laborers union; to do so would have grossly inflated costs through overly-high wages and requirements for more laborers than the job required.

As I noted here, ALa had a story, last May, about her husband (referred to as The Man in her article) working construction on a non-union job in the City of Brotherly Love:

I have to imagine that even pro-union folks from some cute little Midwest town would be absolutely floored at the abject thuggery that goes down here in Philadelphia. When you meet wildly anti-union people (like me), it’s not because we don’t understand the history of the need to organize or the fact that some companies do take advantage of workers. It’s because we have faith that free market and healthy competition has corrected that need. And it’s because we have been direct recipients of the brand of justice unions here see fit to dish out. Screaming in your face is the best of it and handing out pictures of your children or your wife photoshopped in some bizarre sex act, property damage and bodily harm the worst of it.

The Man is now on a job so contentious it’s made national news. He is escorted in daily by Blackwater security.

You can see signage and video feeds of the actual and documented thuggery here: PhillyBully.com

Do you remember the fire that just took the lives of two firefighters from my brother’s station? Well, that fire took place in an abandoned building that was neglected by the owners and the city that became a den of iniquity and a major health risk for the community…and ultimately two public servants.

This building The Man is at (pictured) is similar. Dubbed “the Graffiti building” by local residents it is a rat infested, homeless flop house, eye sore that has the potential to be a health/fire hazard to the surrounding residents. They are THRILLED that this building is being revitalized. Turned into posh apartments by two ballsy guys from Virginia that refuse to play by the Pay to Play rules here in the city of brotherly love. Kudos to them for standing strong.

We’ve heard that the unions, all of them, are “more riled up than they have been in 25 years.” They can’t believe these guys aren’t caving.

Yesterday, escorted by 2 Blackwater guys and a detective, as The Man drove in to the fenced parking area through a throng of 40+ union members (the masons and the carps that particular day) the guys were screaming various things like, “we know who you are” and mumbled threats…but the two that always floor me…? “We’re fighting for your living wage!” The guys at The Man’s company get paid on the exact scale the union guys do, except they don’t have to pay union dues. Duh. And, “You’re taking food out of my kids’ mouths!” Ummm, you dolt, what about my kids?! Are they supposed to starve? If it’s between my kids and your kids…in what bizarro realm am I concerned about yours?

I wish I could have some Blackwater guys so I could go pick the brains (?!) of these lemmings…

Mrs Saffron noted in her story that the government officials in Philadelphia are remarkably silent about the Goldtex project and the union thuggery that has slowed the project down to where it is four months behind schedule. They have plenty of time to worry that the owners of Chick-Fil-A² are Christians who believe in marriage as it has been known throughout the Christian world for 2,000 years but seem remarkably unconcerned that a private developer is losing money having to defend against illegal thuggery by union picketers or that hard-working men in Philadelphia have been physically attacked, and had their property vandalized by the union goons.³

Now, if Chick-fil-A was denying the benefits required by state law to employees in same-sex “marriages,” there could be some legal action undertaken against the company. However, after a reasonable internet search, I have failed to find a single reference to the company doing that or being accused of doing that.

I am not one of those who will either boycott Chick-fil-A for its owners’ political and religious views or who will take a special effort to eat there;4 there isn’t a Chick-fil-A restaurant around here, although there is one in the Lehigh Valley Mall, where I get at least four times a year. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) did make a special stop to buy at Chick-fil-A, as noted by Donald Douglas, while William Jacobsen of Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion noted the amazing display of civility amongst our friends on the left concerning Mrs Palin’s visit. We know that the left hate sexism, because they have so often told us so, but somehow the actual evidence of such seems sparse.
_________________________________
Cross-posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
_________________________________
¹ – Post Brothers is the corporate name for Michael and Matthew Pestronk.
² – Chick-Fil-A is a family-owned company; its shares are not publicly traded. Thus, there are no public shareholders who can dismiss the company leadership for the president’s remarks.
³ – The editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer did run the story, but it’s pretty deeply buried in the print edition, in the Home & Design section published Friday. Mrs Saffron was not terribly sympathetic to the unions’ positions, but she did manage to throw in some liberal platitudes, such as, “It’s also worth pointing out that unions play a valuable role in protecting American workers from exploitation and abuse by employers, especially in these days of the suffering 99 percent.” She did note that the city has lost many substantial projects due to the inflated costs and political stranglehold the unions have created.4 – I will not cease using amazon.com simply because the founder, Jeff Bezos, donated $2.5 million to support same-sex “marriage,” something I see as ridiculous, sinful and a contradiction in terms. I use amazon.com because it is convenient, useful and provides me with sales-tax free shopping.

We have had some people who have equated suspected that opposition to President Obama’s policies must be motivated by racism. Well, RepresentativeAllen West (R-FL-22) is black, so, by using the logic that some other people have used, shouldn’t we at least suspect that George Soros’ opposition to Mr West could be motivated by racism?

Now, whether Mr Soros is actually a racist is something about which I have absolutely no information. But Foxfier’s brief article points out the silliness of the position that opposition to a black person’s policies must be motivated by racism. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) presented a health care plan fairly similar to what was passed into law; had she been elected, and a stimulus plan and universal health care plan been passed, would our liberal from Lewes be telling us that Republican opposition to her policies must be motivated by deeply-seated sexism?

In 2008, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) was also running, and was considered the third of the top three candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.1 Like Senators Clinton and Obama, Mr Edwards had a universal health care coverage plan as part of his platform, one not terribly dissimilar from the plans offered by Senators Clinton and Obama. Had Senator Edwards won the nomination, and the general election, he would have attempted to get his health care plan passed,2 and probably some sort of stimulus plan in 2009; would Republican opposition to those have proved that we hated white men? For that matter, had former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) won the 2008 Republican nomination,3 and proposed something like the Massachusetts plan known as RomneyCare, and we opposed that, would that have made us, well, what now?

What it would have made us are people who supported or opposed given political positions or policies on principles, not on the race or gender of the politician promoting them. More, it makes us people who believe that a person’s race should not define his political positions. As noted here, when our Democrat from Delaware opined that we evil Republicans must hate blacks and women and Mormons and Hispanics and homosexuals and non-Christians, John Hitchcock’s list of endorsements just happened to be loaded up with the groups that our frequent Democratic commenter assured us we, and he, must hate, and, coincidentally enough, didn’t include even one Anglo white male.4

Why? Because Mr Hitchcock was choosing favored candidates based on where they stood, not for whom they were; he was selecting based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In favoring Ted Cruz for the Texas Republican senatorial nomination, he is favoring a man running against a solid, Anglo white male, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (R-TX)

You see, that’s what real conservatives do. We aren’t looking at people’s race or religion, but at their beliefs and political positions. We want to unite people who are Americans as Americans, not divide them into separate groups, selecting some for favored treatment and others for special burdens. And that is the primary thing that separates us from the liberals.
____________________________________1 There were other candidates, such as Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), Representative Dennis Kucinich (Kook-OH) and former Governor Mike Gravel (D-AK), running, but they were always considered the longest of long shots, and their vote totals confirmed that.2 Though it wouldn’t have been in time to pay for the birth of Rielle Hunter’s daughter.3 He did run for the nomination in 2008, but withdrew two days after the Super Tuesday primaries left him trailing Senator John McCain by more than two-to-one in delegates.4 Mr Hitchcock’s endorsement list:

My question is, if you’re a woman, why would you want to associate with a group of people who feel so little about you that they strip you of your rights to think freely? Why would you want to be a part of the misogyny that group of people push?

Punished With A Girl…

In case you missed it in between all the star-studded fundraising and DOJ Fast and Furious dodging, the House killed a bill that would make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions based on the gender of the unborn child. Talk about the ultimate war on women and truly trying to play God. The idea is repulsive, to put it mildly.

The House on Thursday rejected a bill that would have made it illegal for doctors to perform abortions based solely on the gender of the unborn baby.

In a 246-168 vote, Democrats prevented Republicans from securing the two-thirds majority needed to pass the measure, which Republicans said is needed to protect unborn females they claim are more likely to be targeted for “sex-selective” abortions.

Democrats said Republicans’ decision to force a vote on the measure using a parliamentary maneuver that…

Why? Well, if any of our friends on the left even questioned this case, it would raise questions about the women’s responsibility as well as the man’s. Thirty children by eleven different women means that most of these women had to have multiple children by the same man to whom they were not married and could not support. Were our friends on the left to raise this topic, it would call into question their abandonment of the apparently quaint and surely anti-feminist notion that sex has natural consequences, that women bear the greater burden of these consequences, and the old-fashioned norms that women shouldn’t screw around were for their own protection and well-being.

Contraception? It’s inexpensive and widely available. Abortion? Yes, I would like to outlaw it, but it is still perfectly legal, and a large city like Knoxville, Tennessee (which is the home of the University of Tennessee) has two abortion clinics, with inexpensive fees, along with a link to an organization which can help poor women with those fees.

Dr Douglas concluded:

And it is. The report indicates that some of the mothers of Hatchett’s children get as little as $1.50 a month. Somewhere along the way, probably as early as the first child, Hatchett and his hookups were relying on government to pay for their children, the hospital costs, for example (and pre-natal care), and unless the mothers are living with family members and self-sufficient, there’s no doubt that the kids are being supported through public assistance. Indeed, that’s why the county is all over this dude to get with the program. And I can guarantee you that if you say one word about the breakdown of individual responsibility in this case you’ll be attacked as racist. It’s almost unbelievable to think about what’s happened to this country. That’s almost unbelievable. As long as marriage is ridiculed by the enlightened progressive, and as these same left-wing idiots insist on perverting the institution through gay marriage radicalism, things will only get worse before they get better.

The county “is all over this dude to get with the program?” How? He makes minimum wage which, if the reports are accurate, means he is making $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year. Supposedly half of his income is being taken for child support, but, divided among thirty children, doesn’t go very far. If some of the children’s mothers get $1.50 a month, the administrative costs alone are higher than what the recipients get.

The war on women? It was waged with not by Republican policies, but with Desmond Hatchett’s dick, and the people who are suffering the casualties are the eleven women who have children for whom they receive virtually no child support (they were willing casualties), for the thirty children growing up without their scumbag father, and the taxpayers who are going to have to pay for the irresponsibility of Mr Hatchett and his eleven sluts.
______________________________Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Do you want to help the radical Leftists keep track of you? Do you want the Obama Government to know who you are, so they can watch you? Let us at Truth Before Dishonor know! We’ll put you on the list! That way, Big Brother only needs to come here to find out who you are, and you don’t even have to report yourself to Barack Obama’s multiple web-sites set up to track you from your neighbors reporting you to the local Office of Watching Your Neighbors.

We have had a large influx of new visitors since the last time we issued the invitation, so there may be some who don’t know exactly what this is all about. Weeeeellllll, let me tell you! If you’re black… or if you’re hispanic… or if your not-white… and if you’re a Conservative, you’re a Race-Traitor. So saith the radical Leftists in charge of the Democrat Party. If you’re a woman who votes Republican, well, Democrats have declared they need to look up your skirts to ensure you actually are a woman, because for some reason, Democrats don’t believe women should be allowed to vote Republican and still call themselves women. Heck, just recently, a Democrat woman from Philadelphia, the Democrat head of a Committee in the Pennsylvania Legislature, declared all such women were in actuality men with jugs.

So that’s where the Race-Traitors point comes in. If you’re not white and yet you believe you have the freedom of mind to be Conservative, you are a race-traitor as far as the Democrat Party is concerned. Welcome to the club. And if you have a blog, we have a special place of prominence for you in our side-bar.

Regarding the Self-Proclaimed Right Wing Extremist™ Blogs, that came straight out of laughing at Janet Napolitano’s document warning about those of us Right Wing Extremists™ who could become the next terrorist groups to violently attack the US from within. So a couple of us decided to call ourselves Self-Proclaimed Right Wing Extremist™ Bloggers, and I sent out an invitation to all others who would like to be so labeled, just to help the overburdened Janet Napolitano and the overburdened Federal Government be better able to keep track of us would-be terrorists.

Barack Obama doesn’t speak for smart girls like my Army Veteran daughter (or her Army and Navy Veteran husband, who isn’t a girl). Teh Won doesn’t speak for my sister, or my female (or male) cousins, or my aunts, or my mother (who cannot imagine anyone actually wanting to kill her unborn child). And the man who claimed “this is the day the oceans began to recede” (or something to that effect) after he was elected definitely does not speak for these Smart Girls:

The pro-abort crowd is very vociferous in their hate-filled attitude that men have no voice whatsoever in “a woman’s choice” (unless that man is pro-abort). The pro-abort crowd is also very vociferous in claiming Pro-Life women are merely “men with fun bags” as I clearly showed in my previous article referencing Philadelphia Democrat Legislator Babette Josephs. So the pro-abort crowd only accept the opinions of pro-abort women and pro-abort men (who very much wish not to be saddled with any responsibility related to their conquests of morally challenged women).

Pro-aborts always say a man’s contrary opinion doesn’t count, so why would a man’s opinion count at all? Oh, I know. So it gives cover for all the irresponsible women who want to kill their babies. But seriously, why would any pro-abort seek the aid of that “man” above? He’s a dog who has no chance at all of bedding an educated, refined woman. He’s dregs of society and the women he beds are also dregs of society. Neither of them have any interest in being personally responsible for their actions, or in obeying society’s rules.

But according to Babette Josephs, Democrat Pennsylvania Legislature and Dem leader in a certain committee in the Pennsylvaia Legislature, Pro-Life women are actually men with ta-tas. So every photo above, according to Babette Josephs — herself a useful tool in scaring away rats — is of men, and mostly men with melons, or who will have melons.

Talk to the Pro-Abort women and they’ll tell you “I’m not a snob! Just ask anyone! Anyone who counts, that is!”

UPDATEThe Other McCain has placed this article in its “Headlines” section! Thank you, RS McCain!